Debates of Feb. 18th, 2020

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear. The comments as reported are completely unacceptable.

The IRB has provided my office with assurances that it is overhauling its complaints review process and it is making sure that sensitivity training is mandatory for all of its members. These are two critical steps that will ensure that everyone gets a fair hearing absolutely free from all forms of discrimination, including gender bias.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I really hope that judge was fired.

The Liberals must take immediate steps to stop IRB adjudicators from revictimizing vulnerable claimants. There have been several reports of mishandling sexual and gender-based cases, including the demand for nude photos of a sex trafficking victim. Another victim was asked why her abuser did not just kill her. This pattern of sexist remarks suggests IRB judges have no understanding of assault whatsoever.

What is the government going to do to ensure that victims of sexual abuse and exploitation are protected, and when are you going to do this?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members that when they place a question, to place it through the Speaker and not to the speaker.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the intent of my hon. colleague's question. As I said, these comments are completely unacceptable.

The IRB has provided assurances to my office that it is overhauling the complaints process, that it is ensuring that mandatory training is being provided to all members so that we maintain the highest professional standards, and that every person who appears before the IRB gets a fair hearing that is free from all forms of bias, including gender discrimination.

Infrastructure

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House spoke and the Auditor General listened. Light will be shone on the $186-billion infrastructure plan. This minority government boasts about being open and transparent at every opportunity it can find.

Can the Prime Minister assure all parliamentarians in the House that the Auditor General will have the resources to investigate the Liberal infrastructure fiasco?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this excellent question. There are two things. First, the Auditor General will have the necessary resources to carry out this important work. Second, we expect that he will find again and again what the Conservative members may have forgotten: Over the past four years, four times as many infrastructure projects have been developed in Canada, and six times as many in Quebec, as in the previous four years.

Finance

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Kitchener Centre, the cost of living continues to increase for middle-class families. Families are asking that our government take more steps to make life affordable.

Can the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance please update the House on our government's plan to make life more affordable for middle-class Canadians?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for his advocacy and hard work on behalf of his constituents.

In 2015, Canadians elected our government to strengthen the middle class. As our first order of business, we lowered taxes for middle-class families.

In 2019, we once again lowered taxes for 20 million Canadians by increasing the basic personal amount. Once fully rolled out, this measure will put $600 back in the pockets of the average middle-class family each year. These tax cuts are in addition to investments our government has been introducing, such as the Canada child benefit.

Indigenous Affairs

[Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2019, the minister came to Nunavut and apologized for the federal government's failure to provide “proper housing, adequate medical care, education, economic viability and jobs.”

Apologies without action mean nothing. How do Liberals think they can move forward, along with indigenous peoples, on situations like we are seeing in the Wet'suwet'en territories if they refuse to back up their words with concrete action?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to working in partnership with territorial, provincial and indigenous partners to co-develop priorities for the north. Together, we revised the nutrition north list of subsidized food and lowered the cost of the northern food basket. We have signed an agreement in principle on the devolution of crown lands and water rights in Nunavut, and we launched the Arctic and northern policy framework in September 2019.

We will continue to work on solutions for the north, by the north.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Independent, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some two years ago the Prime Minister stood in the House and committed to the recognition and implementation of indigenous title and rights in legislation. That long-overdue work has not happened, and we continue to see the challenges across the country due to that inaction.

As was committed, and speaking of concrete action, will the government introduce legislation that upholds the minimum standards of UNDRIP?

Equally important, will it actually implement those standards domestically, so that indigenous peoples are supported in their self-determination, can rebuild and can exercise their authority in clear and predictable ways for their own people and for all Canadians?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to receive, in my mandate letter from the Prime Minister, the immediate priority of implementing UNDRIP in Canadian legislation.

We will be engaging with Canadians and working in partnership with indigenous peoples to implement the declaration as a framework for reconciliation.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Ms. Elin Jones, Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to elaborate a little bit further and ask the parliamentary secretary if he would withdraw his misleading statement to the House. For a government that is committed to doing politics differently and not taking cheap political shots, that was absolutely what happened today.

Will he withdraw his misleading statement about my being offered a briefing? I was not offered a briefing until a meeting that I had in the House of Commons, or rather, in the parliamentary precinct yesterday, 48 hours after the issue became news.

I would ask that he would—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid that falls into the area of debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Special Employment Insurance sickness benefits

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

The Bloc Québécois is once again calling on the government to take action on employment insurance. This is not the first time that we have made this request. We have always been working for a thorough reform of the program. Whether it is for a separate fund, for improved access to regular benefits—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I will have to interrupt you for a second.

I would like to remind everyone that there is a debate taking place and if anyone has something to say they should whisper or go to the lobby.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the Bloc Québécois is again calling on the government to take action on employment insurance. This is not the first time we have made this call.

We have always been committed to a thorough reform of the program, whether by establishing an independent fund, improving access to current benefits, ending the classification of the unemployed based on their claims, or, of course, improving benefits, all benefits.

For almost 30 years now, we have been demanding that the EI program be designed for our world—not for the needs of the government, but for the needs of our people, those who have given us the privilege of representing them in the House.

Right now, we have a program that is a direct attack on those who are already in precarious situations, that hurts seasonal workers in our regions and that leaves out those who are ill, seriously ill. The reason is very simple, and that is a lack of political will. The EI program cannot adequately and properly support those truly in need.

This is precisely why the Bloc Québécois moved the motion we are debating today, which calls on the government to increase the special employment insurance sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks in the upcoming budget in order to support people with serious illnesses, such as cancer.

The main motivation for this demand, if one is necessary, is that the period of special employment insurance sickness benefits was based on the use of barely one-quarter of recipients. When the special benefit program was created, the government knew that the number of weeks was insufficient for over three-quarters of recipients. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Department of Employment and Social Development chose the number of weeks based on survey data that indicated that just 23% of recipients returned to work after the 15 weeks of benefits.

In other words, the government at the time and successive governments since then have known that the EI benefits provided do not adequately meet demand. It is completely unfair that every government elected since has knowingly accepted this situation.

The EI sickness benefit is inequitable because of the number of hours required to qualify. No matter where they live, be it Vancouver or Blanc-Sablon, claimants need to accumulate 600 insured hours of work to be eligible for benefits. It is also more difficult to qualify for sickness benefits than for regular benefits if the regional unemployment rate is greater than 8.1%, which, according to various economic indicators, is the case for one in four economic regions, despite strong overall job numbers. I shudder to think what things would be like if the economy were doing poorly.

In my riding, people in Minganie and the lower north shore have to work 180 more hours to qualify for sickness benefits than for regular benefits. The same goes for people in the Gaspé and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

It seems that no government has wanted to admit that the purpose of employment insurance is not to have a petty cash fund alongside the budget, so that it can dip into it to cover up its deficits or make money off the sick. The purpose of employment insurance is to make life easier for people who are forced out of the labour market for reasons beyond their control. It is insurance, a social safety net to which workers contribute in return for the guarantee and assurance that they will be compensated following an unfortunate event, such as the loss of a job or a serious illness.

The worst part of it all is that no one chooses to get sick. There is no such thing as someone getting up in the morning and saying to themselves, “I think I am ready for a little serious illness. I am ready for a tragedy. I am ready for some misery”. Getting sick is a tragedy. It turns people's lives upside down. It is a daily struggle. It is stressful and demanding for people. We should be there to support them.

It is not right for a person to worry and fret about their financial health before their personal health. Situations like that of Marie-Hélène Dubé should not exist. Because she did not work 600 hours, she had to mortgage her house several times while she was fighting cancer.

In such a wealthy society, no one should ever be unable to pay their rent and end up on the street when they are in remission. It is not right for people to be left with nothing when they are going through one of the most difficult ordeals of their lives. It is not right, because we have the power to change things and to enable our people to have some measure of dignity during those trying times.

Also, the government might want to remember the last time it was in opposition when it responds to our motion. In 2012, the Liberal Party overwhelmingly supported a bill that would have extended EI benefits from 15 to 50 weeks and eliminated the wait times.

Today, we are reaching out to the Liberals. We are inviting them to follow our lead and to do what should have been done a long time ago, namely make life easier for people who are forced to take time off work because of illness.

During the vote on the motion, I would like each member of this House to remember that every second person living in Canada will get cancer during their lifetime. If we set aside every other serious or chronic disease that could affect our lives and think only of cancer, half of us will have to rely on EI benefits. We could have to cope with the disease and all the added expenses that go with it with only 15 weeks of benefits.

I think that it is time we did what we should have done a long time ago, namely help people who cannot work and give them time to heal. Providing 50 weeks of benefits is the only way of giving the sick time to heal with dignity.

In closing, I would like to point out that I am thinking about all the people in my riding, about all Canadians, and about one person in particular, who has long fought for the unemployed and who is now fighting an illness. I would like this person to have peace of mind, and I know that the only thing that will do that is to abolish all inequities for all EI claimants, in particular those who are sick.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as many members of the Liberal caucus will say, it is important to recognize that as a government, we all believe very passionately in EI benefits for sickness.

We have seen many EI reforms take place over the last number of years. We have listened to the stakeholders, in particular to the Canadian Cancer Society, which has recommended 26 weeks. We have now seen the Liberal government, this government led by the Prime Minister, say that we are moving toward a half-year of benefits. That is significant progress. For many years I sat in opposition, and back then the Conservatives completely ignored the issue. We now have a government that is taking tangible action in moving towards a half-year.

Would the member from the Bloc not agree that at the very least, we could recognize that? Maybe what we could do or should be doing, because we are not saying “absolutely not” into the future, is advancing the idea of expanding, not only in this area but other possible areas, by recommending that this issue go to a standing committee as opposed to just adding additional weeks.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for his question.

I am a bit disappointed to see that his passion has subsided over the years. I remember that, in 2012, the Liberal Party, which was then the official opposition, wanted to extend benefits to 50 weeks. Now here we are, eight years later, and we can do that, but we are being told that 26 weeks is enough.

When a person is really passionate, there are no limits, especially when the means are there. I therefore expect to see benefits extended to 50 weeks.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Manicouagan. Today is the first time that I am participating in this important debate about this key motion.

I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for giving us this opportunity to change the EI system and offer 50 weeks of benefits to those struggling with major health crises, such as cancer.

I would simply like to ask my colleague if she would like to raise any other matters, because she spoke very movingly about the consequences such crises can have on the life of every family member.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, my hon. colleague’s question is about what all members of Parliament should do.

In my opinion, we have talked at length about figures and actuaries, but we are beyond figures now, and we have the opportunity to act. People do not get sick for predetermined periods of 26, 15 or 32 weeks, so the program needs to be flexible.

In a spirit of fairness, given that people who lose their jobs receive 50 weeks of benefits, we believe that people who are sick should also receive 50 weeks of benefits. Obviously, I am also appealing to my colleagues’ sense of compassion: I am certain that they will see that 50 weeks is the right solution.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member who previously made comments spoke at length about gender equity. In Canada, one in eight women will experience breast cancer in her lifetime, and the average time for treatment and recovery is 25 to 36 weeks.

However, this is not just about gender equity; it is about justice for all. For those with colon cancer the average treatment and recovery time is 37 weeks. As the member mentioned, one out of every two Canadians is going to experience cancer at some point in his or her lifetime, with an average treatment and recovery time of 52 weeks.

I ask the member across the way for her thoughts on the Liberal government's comfort with half measures when sick and injured Canadians are waiting.